📅 Original date posted:2015-06-20
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from anywhere at any time…
I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument
from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I
think the assumptions while using the system should be:
"As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are
not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest
chain and outpace attackers."
I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this
context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and
proof-of-work-timestamped history.
Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering
unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a
universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in
the first place.
Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:39:15
in reply to nevent1q…09nq
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:39:15Event JSON
{
"id": "2f55b73bbeafbcaa78d4d2767a4c1e45aaf527f7f9dbf1c53577097b9f65ef3f",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152355,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5b6dac5744045958e93ce3782c1b11c260f5aafb8981e0749ae7f70a1f3bb682",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-20\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from anywhere at any time…\n\nI disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument\nfrom authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I\nthink the assumptions while using the system should be:\n\n\"As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are\nnot cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest\nchain and outpace attackers.\"\n\nI can't say for sure what was meant by \"attacking the network\" in this\ncontext but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and\nproof-of-work-timestamped history.\nUnconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering\nunconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a\nuniversal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in\nthe first place.\n\nAlternative policies are NOT attacks on the network.",
"sig": "d492f3da118aade3a1b937931506e167ee48fb886199a33ba42d8559d9090cddf02590a1a4fd2e130d54ffe35148d447af742ec44bb697bc4301cd4e2b3183e3"
}